logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.09.14 2017나61867
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant live together from June 2014 to December 2016, and maintained a de facto marriage relationship for about two years and six months. However, the Defendant unilaterally reversed a de facto marriage relationship on or around December 13, 2016, and thus, the Defendant should pay 20 million won consolation money following the reversal of an unfair de facto marriage relationship.

2. We first examine whether a de facto marital relationship has been established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, before determining whether a de facto marital relationship exists.

A. Domination, de facto marriage refers to a combination of men and women not recognized as a legally married couple because the parties have an intention to marry between themselves and have a real marital life that is socially justifiable, but did not report a marriage, which is the form of the formal requirement. Thus, to establish a de facto marriage, the parties should have the substance of marital life that may be objectively recognized as a marital life in terms of the social order and order in terms of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do4942, Jan. 30, 2001; 200Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001). Here, “Marriage intention” refers to a common life as a couple having a social reality, and “an intention to have a social right and obligation that a woman forms an economic community and acquires an institutional effect in accordance with the social system of marriage, namely, a combination of economic communities.”

B. As to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff and the Defendant lived for about two and a half years from June 2014 to December 2016. However, each of the above facts of recognition and the evidence Nos. 2 to 5 are not sufficient enough to dispute between the parties, such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant living together for a certain period of time, or making a marital life on the premise that they were living together with the Plaintiff or the Defendant for a certain period of time.

arrow